Tuesday, May 31, 2016

14 Red flags when dealing with women

I haven't dated a lot of women in my life but, I have learned from those bad experiences. I've also learned even more from other people's bad experiences. There are certain negative traits in a woman that you need to look out for, gentlemen. If a woman you're dating exhibits ANY of these traits, you want to RUN LIKE HELL. Trust me.

1.) Drama Queens...

Does she blow everything out of proportion and try to turn everything into a fight? If so, just walk away now. The situation will never get any better. You will never have a moment's peace.

2.) Being flaky...

Does she not show up for dates you arranged with her days (or even weeks) ago? If so, walk away. If they can't be bothered to show up, chances are good they will never be overly affectionate.

3.) How they treat people in service positions...

Does she treat waiters, ticket takers and baristas like they're beneath her dignity? If so, I can virtually guarantee that she'll do that to you one day too.

4.) How do they react around their family? That's a good indicator of her personality. Specifically, is it different from how she acts around you when you're alone?

Does she act like an angel around her folks and a nasty little sex fiend around you when you're both alone? It doesn't even have to be that example. If her personality is significantly different around her family than it is in public or with you, RUN. She's not being honest with you about a great many things. She might also be mentally ill or hiding a number of insecurities by pretending to be someone else. You don't need that grief in your life.

5.) She wants to be treated like a Princess

This is especially prevalent with spoiled rich chicks and trophy wives that you know only married their geriatric husband for his money. Any man that wants to keep a woman will treat her right. However, how many of us can even afford to make the mistake of treating her like royalty? That is just not a realistic option. Women who have that idea are only going to be disappointed and take out their frustrations on you. Why don't you buy me the car I want? Why don't we go out more? You don't really love me if you don't buy me that necklace! Avoid these Gold-Diggers, gentlemen.

6.) Says all her Exes were jerks (which is statistically unlikely)

It's possible that all her exes were jerks but, this becomes less and less likely with the more people she dates over the course of her life. If she's in her twenties and all of her exes are still jerks, that means they probably weren't. The problem is likely to be with her. Even if all those guys were jerks, the problem is still with her because she keeps picking these losers. Run, bro!

7.) She's not flexible

Stubbornness is NOT ever an endearing trait. If she says 'My way or the Highway' head out to the Highway.

8.) Doesn't want you to spend time with your male friends

Even the most loving couples need a break from one another. Also, if she acts this way, she may be Overly Attached. Overly Attached Girlfriends are NOT what you want, bro. Trust me... Getting rid of them can be pretty dangerous too. You really do want to stay away from them. Seriously, just stay away from them. They're just a psycho-stalker waiting for a new target.

9.) Arguing with you all the time

Seems like she tries to make everything into an argument right now? Well, she'll keep doing that forever, dude. Get away now before she suckers you into marriage and kids. (Assuming she even wants those things...)

10.) You can't stand her friends

Remember, 'birds of a feather stick together'. So, if her friends are annoying as hell, then, she will eventually annoy you too. Do NOT marry that person.

11.) Acts violent toward you

Doesn't matter if she can hurt you or not. If she's trying to provoke you into a physical confrontation, then you need to run. The cops and courts are not likely to believe that she started the altercation.

12.) Different values and life goals (faith/spirituality, family plans, et al.)

If you're Christian & want kids but she's an atheist/Wiccan/Buddhist/et al. that hates children, then, why are you dating her? She'll never give you what you want. It will be a waste of your time and hers. Walk away right now. Don't look back.

13.) Rarely shows that she appreciates you...

Does it seem like she just doesn't care about you? Well, she probably doesn't. Go find someone who does appreciate you instead.

14.) Never apologizes for ANYTHING ever.

People who are arrogant enough to think that they are never wrong are just a walking time bomb of a nightmare, just waiting to happen. Get away from this self-absorbed, potentially psychopathic twatwaffle as fast as your legs can carry you.


15.) She treats you like a child...

Why anyone would date a woman that acts like a mean-spirited mother instead of a lover, I will never know. However, I have seen a (supposed) man doing this to himself. I won't go into details about this poor soul letting a woman push him around (and women should not let a man push them around, either) but, needless to say, he was her bitch. He couldn't see it but, I could tell she didn't really respect him. She just liked having someone she could control, probably to hide her own insecurities.

I tried to clue him in on all of this in subtle ways. I would just say 'Don't let her push you around' or 'She shouldn't treat you that way' in very even, totally inoffensive tones of voice. He insisted on sticking up for her and tried to tell me that I didn't understand. Well, that's true. I don't understand why someone has those kind of masochistic tendencies. Grow a pair, shitbag. You're making the male of the species look bad.

- Publius

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Remember when I promised to write more?

Well, I have been writing more, just not here. As I have previously mentioned, I started writing for a friend's gaming website called 'Fortis Core.' The articles I have written for it so far have been getting a lot of traffic (for a small site, at least...) and positive feedback. Can't say that I'm surprised but, it is still gratifying to hear. Once I get my life in order (LOL) and get into a groove, I'll be able to dedicate more time to that site and this blog. Then, the fun really begins...

Anyway, here's the titles and direct links to each article...

Retro-Gaming On A Plug'N'Play Done Right


Can a new player come into the console business and succeed?


Review: SEGA Genesis Ultimate Portable Game Player Deluxe


Are the arcades really dead?


TxK: The reason why I bought a PS Vita


Some of these articles were originally intended for this blog here. However, since I knew they'd fit in over there (and probably get much more readers on that site) I posted them over there. There will also be two new series I'll create for the articles on that site too. One will be classic game reviews. The other will talk about games I'd love to see actually get made. I have a number of those kinds of ideas left over from when I studied Game Design in college. Even if I never get to make them, I really do want to see them get made by someone. Those ideas are too good to just lie idle on my hard drives forever.

- Publius

Thursday, May 12, 2016

4 principles of good leadership

Somehow, the subject of Leadership recently came up in a conversation with a few relatives. So, I think it's about time I give the world a short but, effective tutorial on the subject. My time in the Army was rather instructive on a great many things, including this topic. While most of the time the Army just gave me some clear (and often painful) examples of toxic leadership, I did also learn what a good leader looks like too.

1.) NEVER ask a subordinate to do something you are not willing or able to do yourself.

If you do, you're not a leader, just a boss. What's the difference? Simply put, bosses say 'do this' and leaders say 'follow me.' You have to set the example of 'what right looks like' as they used to say in the Army. Nothing motivates a subordinate more than their leader actually getting into the proverbial trenches along with them.

A good example would be Caesar's final conquest of Gaul. In the last major battle of the Gallic Wars, his forces were on a hill, surrounded by the barbarian forces of Vercingetorix and out-numbered 2 to 1. Knowing the odds, Caesar decided to go to the front and personally lead his troops into battle. He even wore a red cape, like his hero Alexander the Great, to distinguish himself from all the other Romans. Tactically and strategically, what Caesar did was pretty stupid. One stray arrow from a barbarian and he could have been killed. However, he still motivated his men enough for them to defeat the barbarians and conquer Gaul.

2.) DON'T be an asshole.

I can't stress this one enough. No one wants to work for a toxic person or deal with a toxic culture in their workplace, unit or whatever other organization where you're in a leadership role.

You don't have to kiss ass but, you do have to be respectful. Don't engage in office politics. Don't talk about people behind their backs. Don't try to publicly discredit or shame someone when they make a mistake. Don't allow any kind of office politics in your area of responsibility or command. Doing these things will destroy the cohesion of the team and make everything fall apart.

I have seen it many times before in and out of the Army. The results are always the same: your subordinates become very unhappy and decide to leave your organization for greener pastures. That's why I left the Army and why I decided to get out of the Insurance Adjusting business too. I will not tolerate being set up for failure by having bad leadership. In the Army, bad leadership can literally get people killed. That's a no-go.

3.) The needs of your subordinates ALWAYS come before you're own.

This means that EVERY need of the subordinates must be addressed before you start worrying about yourself. The soldiers eat before the Commanding Officer eats.

One of the better examples of this I've seen would be holiday dinners while in the Army. At those dinners, the officers and senior NCO's of the unit/battalion/brigade all get behind the buffet tables and put the food on the soldier's plates as they pass by. Having to spend so many Christmas holidays away from home really sucked. However, it was still pretty nice for a General from Brigade HQ to serve me a few pieces of turkey. I really did appreciate the gesture.

4.) Remember that you are not Lord and Master, only a Servant.

And the way you serve is by making sure your subordinates can perform their roles with as little trouble as possible. In the end, all relationships should be one where each person serves the other.

Probably the best example of this that I can remember came from the Bible, in John 13:1-17. This is the story about Jesus washing the feet of his disciples before the Passover dinner that would become the Last Supper.

Jewish tradition called for people to be clean from head to toe before sitting down to eat. So, Jesus literally washed his disciples' feet, which were probably quite filthy from all the walking those men did. It was a way for Jesus to teach humility to the disciples, as one of the final lessons he would teach them before the Crucifixion. He was literally 'showing them what right looks like' by demonstrating that all leaders are not masters but servants.

"If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you." - John 3:14-15 (NASB)

He was a man of peace but, with leadership skills like that, I still say that Jesus could have made a great NCO. He'd certainly be better than a lot of the stripe-wearin' jokers that I dealt with over the years. He might have even been able to work some of his magic and give me some decent running ability too. That would have certainly made my time in the Service a lot easier. :P

- Lord Publius

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Response (and more questions) regarding the 'Frequently Asked Questions' page from Letthemmarry.org

I really should know better than to follow any of the anti-religious links that Happy Heresy puts on her Facebook page. Yet, despite knowing how much she hates religion (as many people growing up in the Catholic tradition often do), I still try to explain to her the difference between Faith and Religion. I'm not so much concerned with her being an Atheist, I just don't want her to have the wrong idea about actual Biblical Christianity. True Followers of Christ's teachings do not act the way that the people in that church she went to as a child acted. I'm not going to say anything else about that since I don't want to discuss someone else's personal business. I'm not even sure how much more of the story that I remember now. However, I can say that she wasn't molested by a priest. They usually preferred the Alter Boys, anyway. :P (For those who are wondering, this person is one of my Army buddies from when I served at Fort Gordon in 2010.)

Furthermore, in the interests of full disclosure, I must now inform my readers that I am a Non-Denominational Christian that regularly attends services at a Bible-based Church. It's the same church that I attended as a child and that my family suddenly stopped going to in 1994, when I was 12. I don't know why we stopped going there. However, my mother started going again on her own sometime in the last 2 years or so (if not earlier) and I started going with her regularly again a few months ago.

This church makes it a point to analyze the scripture and look up the original versions of verses in whatever language was used by the original source material. (Ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic & Syriac.) We would not take any verse at face value, unless its meaning is plainly obvious. For example, the 6th Commandment saying 'Do not murder' in the original Hebrew. Even in those circumstances, analysis and discussion are strongly encouraged. I would not have it any other way, being so analytical and slow to trust ANYTHING that another person claims. Anyone who thinks that Faith is supposed to be blind obviously never understood what they read in the Bible. After all, 'blind faith' is what allows cults to form, with the Catholic Church being the most infamous example in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

So, when I see crazy shit like this 'let them marry' site, I become quite angry, horrified and dismayed. It gives people the wrong idea about what Christianity is and what a Christian should actually do with their lives. Their FAQ reads like an apologist for a disreputable cult trying to put a positive spin on their false teachings. That's also likely to be exactly what it is and what we will be analyzing at great length today.

Also, NONE of the congregants in my church are aware of this blog, except my mother. If the congregation read this blog, they'd probably be quite shocked by the frank use of language. The exceptions to that being a few of my mother's friends there who have socialized with me outside of the church and have heard me opine on one subject or another. They would probably be quite amused since some of them are also military veterans. It often gets VERY hard to bite my tongue when they ask me about my opinions on political issues.

Now, back to the show...

In case you've never heard of the 'Let them Marry' site, it's the site of a religious organization (and possible cult) that seems to think people should be getting married 'the moment they're physically able to have children.' They try to ameliorate this in a number of ways but, none of it rings true to me. It sounds like they read a bunch of Bible verses out of context. Even worse, they may be deliberately trying to twist the words to mean what they want them to mean. That has happened many times over the millennia and will happen much more often, I'm sure. For example, many Southern churches in the Antebellum period and the War between the States all vehemently insisted that Slavery was part of God's will. Apparently, they forgot about that little verse in the Torah where Moses specifically outlawed Slavery and made Death the punishment for that crime...

He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." - Exodus 21:16

There were MANY other claims made that seem to contradict objective reality as well. I will list some of them below. I can't list them all because that would fill a book. The text of their claims from their FAQ will be put in italicized text.

1.) They have a disclaimer saying they don't support child marriage, which I find difficult to even understand, let alone believe.

It reads this way...

"Note: Contrary to vicious internet rumors we do not support or in any way condone child sexual activity of any sort, child marriage, or any other illegal activity. Nor do we support or condone forced marriages. We believe that parents should NOT seek a spouse for a child where that child has not actively sought for the parents to do so."

And yet, they have no issue with boys and girls as young as 12 getting betrothed and/or married, 'as long as they are ready' and asked their parents to find them a spouse.

What the Fuck?! How does that make sense?!

So, when a child starts puberty and also gets horny for the first time, he (or she) is supposed to ask for a spouse and start their own family. What kind of world do these people live in here? This is not Ancient Judea, where life was short, harsh and your people were constantly under threat of foreign invasion, enslavement or genocide. It's not necessary for a 'Man' to obey his natural inclination to put his boneration in a young woman's separation to increase the population of the next generation just because he can finally splooge his shorts.

12 year-olds are quite immature. They are NOT capable of rational thought and actions. They are NOT marriage material. They would not make good parents. Period. End of Discussion. Nature and Nature's God have spoken! Hell, what would a 12 year-old boy even do with a wife? Many of them haven't even had 'the sex talk' with their parents yet and you want them to be getting married? Jesus Christ!

And No, I did not just take the Lord's name in vain. The 3rd Commandment refers to doing evil in God's name, not using it as an exclamation or an expletive. Also, The savior's actual name was Jeshua of Nazareth. 'Jesus' is the Latinized version of his given name. 'Christ' is a title, the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word 'Messiah', which means 'the anointed one.'

2.) Bad marriages apparently don't exist for these folks in their warped little universe...

They claim that 'bad marriages are better than no marriage at all'. Clearly, they have never spoken to anyone who was being abused by their spouse, married to an irresponsible drunk, discovered their husband was a criminal, et al.

Practice a little empathy and put yourself in the shoes of people who suffer in a bad marriage:

Would you want to be married to someone who regularly beat you?

Would you want to be married to someone who cheated on you so much that you're not sure if the children she's had are really yours?

Would you want to be married to someone after you discovered that, instead of being in *insert legitimate profession here*, he was actually a real life Tony Soprano?

Those situations are not a marriage, they are a VERY DANGEROUS lie that can get you killed if you stay in those situations.

Divorce exists (and is allowed under certain circumstances like Adultery and Immorality) for a good reason: some marriages should have NEVER happened.

3.) They are also against courtship rituals and dating, claiming that they evolved out of prostitution and organized adultery.

Don't ask me where this insane-sounding idea came from because they didn't exactly make that clear. What they did make clear at great length, is how they think the courtship ritual fails people in the process of finding a spouse.

"We teach that marriage is ordained for the prevention of fornication. Indeed we teach, along with the Church historical, that the young man or woman struggling with fornication must marry. Many courtship advocates, on the other hand, teach that someone who is struggling with fornication may not marry, that they are not ‘ready’ for marriage."

"Courtship spends most of the effort making sure that ‘unready’ people do not marry. They publish long lists of ways in which the young man or (more rarely) young woman may not be ‘ready’ for marriage.

We teach, on the other that ‘unready’ people should marry. Indeed, we teach that unready people must marry. Scripture shows that what most of us are not ready for is remaining unmarried, not getting married. That being successfully unmarried is the state that needs the special, rare, spiritual gift.

Are these people fucking crazy?!

People who 'aren't ready' is another way of describing people who can't (or won't) stay faithful to a spouse. Those people shouldn't marry because doing so would mean they'd end up violating the 7th Commandment: Do not commit adultery. Which is worse to you: Someone staying single and having out-of-wedlock relations or someone cheating on their spouse? (Expecting someone to stay celibate is just not reasonable.)

4.) They think 20 is the oldest that anyone should be getting married... And that consent of the prospective bride and groom isn't necessary...

They cite several historical figures in Christianity like Martin Luther and John Calvin (people whose opinions I certainly do NOT share on some issues) and the following Bible verses: Jeremiah 29:6, Judges 21:7, Ezra 9:12, Nehemiah 10:30, 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. I have read through the verses for myself and think they are taking them too literally for anyone's good... and misinterpreting them in pretty horrible ways.

When a verse like Jeremiah 29:6 tells you to 'take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands', what the author means is 'let your children grow up, do what adults do and start families of their own.' This whole book is the Prophet Jeremiah telling the Jews to accept that they don't live in Israel anymore and to get used to living in the Babylonian kingdom ruled by Nebuchadnezzar as punishment for the Israelite's wickedness. It also goes on to tell the Jews that God will return them to Israel in 70 years. That's is what is often referred to by the often misquoted Jeremiah 29:11 as well.

Judges 21:7 was part of a story where the Judges were advising the Israelite tribes on which tribes they should inter-marry with and which ones should be avoided. It had NOTHING to do with a bride and groom's age or parents setting them up together.

Ezra 9:12 was the author speaking on God's behalf, advising the Jews NOT to inter-marry with the barbarians that inhabited the land they were about to enter. They were apparently godless and unclean. This verse has more to do with recommending against mixed marriages than it does when and how a person should marry. That sure doesn't sound very egalitarian...

Nehemiah 10:30 was similar to Ezra 9:12, again forbidding a mixed marriage between 'those who keep God's laws' (aka Jews) and anyone else. Again, it has nothing to do with a bride and groom's age or parents setting them up together.

1 Corinthians 7:36-38 is slightly more tricky...

I'll admit that the writings of St. Paul often leave me feeling confused. These 3 verses are no different. I think he's saying that it's okay for an unmarried woman that's past her child-bearing prime to get married if she wants. Although, I'm not sure how that's even possible. At that early stage in the church, many of the congregants still followed Jewish Rabbinical law. Those laws required all people to be married by age 25 at most. So, how is an Old Maid even a thing in those early churches? Was he addressing the Greeks and Romans in the Corinthian church? Was he talking about widows?

Well, yes and no. As he said in another of his Epistles, there is neither Jew nor Greek in Christ's church. So, his expressed opinions applied to everyone. He was actually advising that women who never married should probably stay that way and focus on serving the Lord instead of a husband. However, he didn't want to force this on anyone and gave these unmarried women the option to marry if they wished.

Funny that this disturbing little cult would try to use Paul's words on marriage from 1 Corinthians 7. Paul's advice on that issue was *quite* different from the attitudes and opinions on the subject expressed by the authors of books in the Old Testament. However, that's what these cults do: twist the Word to suit their own agenda. It makes me sick.

I tend to be different from most Christians because I refuse to prostelytize or witness to people. It drives away a lot more than it attracts. I'm not even sure what 'witnessing' even is since it's almost never mentioned in my particular church. However, I do HATE when Christians get misrepresented or misunderstood by this kind of crap when it gets media attention. People like this 'Let them marry' site, the Duggars, the Vatican and other cults have twisted things so much that it's no surprise that people go to church less and less. They all (perhaps unwittingly) violate the 3rd Commandment by doing this evil in God's name, and in the process show why that Commandment was given to Moses. When you do evil in God's name, it brings Him and spirituality into disrepute. That drives people away and creates Atheists. Not cool, bro. Not cool...

5.) They claim they aren't promoting forced marriages. I don't believe them.

"Aren't you promoting forced marriages? By no means! Emphatically, an “arranged marriage” (fathers binding their children in the covenant of betrothal) is NOT synonymous with “a forced marriage”, and sadly, secular sources are often more honest in this matter to recognize this clear distinction than other Christians are. Unfortunately, this idea is far too common in our modern notions, and far too often we are accused of promoting this, either explicitly or implicitly. When the “liberty” that moderns value (especially Americans) is contrasted with the type of authority and submissiveness that the Bible teaches and demonstrates, it is challenging to us, and this sharp contrast often leads people to jump to the idea of “forced” compliance. It is difficult for the modern (again, especially Americanized cultures) to come to grips with the idea of willful, joyful submission."

I have noticed people of faith becoming increasingly more and more critical of American culture. When it comes to what passes for 'pop culture' these days, I can understand and sometimes agree with that point of view. Most 'music' these days is pure trash and these so-called 'reality' shows make celebrities out of fools and functional retards. (That's right, I'm looking at YOU, Kim and Kanye!)

However, I do not agree with these cultists seemingly insinuating that the true American culture of personal liberty and self-determination is a bad thing. Everyone must come to develop their personal relationship with God in their own way. Forcing them to do it YOUR way is not egalitarian or something that the Christ would actually sanction. By telling people they're wrong for wanting to make their own choices, you are essentially trying to rob them of their Agency, Free Will and Humanity all at once. In simpler language, you're violating the spirit of the Law of Moses as expressed in Exodus 21:16: you are trying to make people a slave to your ideals. This kind of behavior and fanatical devotion to doctrine is one of the main causes of the Protestant Reformation. Quit being a dick by trying to tell me what I can and can't do with my dick.

6.) They really do get off on this betrothal thing...

"Moreover, we believe that betrothal, etc. actually does a much better job at protecting and providing for children (including daughters) than modern systems and, in fact, gives them many more options than alternative methods used by Christians today. For example, courtship and Christian dating go to lengths to teach that the woman is never to initiate but that it is her role merely to respond. In fact, nearly all of the required actions are put on the shoulders of the young man. In contrast, we see several accounts in Scripture of the woman's father taking the initiative (perhaps even being prompted by his daughter), even going so far as to give his daughter to the man in marriage (obligating him to be the one who responds) instead.

In general, it is the fathers and not the man and woman themselves who take action to make the betrothal covenant. There are sometimes objections that the woman does not have a "choice" in who she marries in this respect, but it may be said just as well that the man does not have a "choice" either. There are examples in Scripture where a man takes a wife on his own without his parents being involved, but then again, this kind of thing happens all the time under dating or even courtship.

(An ironic side note: It is funny how when the father of a boy meets with the father of a girl, and they agree to a betrothal, this is seen as 'anti-woman' (i.e. against the girl) even though the boy and the girl were treated equally!)

Yes, both being treated equally bad. Both are being treated equally as property or ignorant children, rather than as rational actors with agency who can make their own decisions. That's not in accordance with God's will, either. I don't know what Bible these people are reading but, it's clearly not the one I've read. Since when does God actually condone treating people as property? He brought the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt just because he HATED people being treated as property!

And if I may get personal for a moment, I think if there's any decision where I do not want my father's input/influence, it's going to be who I decide to marry. There are 2 reasons why...

A.) He doesn't have a good track record with choosing spouses for himself.

I say that because I can think of very few things he and my mother had in common. Marrying someone very different from you is not necessarily a guarantee that the relationship will fail but, it does require both parties to put extra work into their relationship. They both started to drift from each other when I was in High School, if not sooner. He has admitted to me that he stayed married to my mother for so long for the sake of me and my younger siblings. He 'knew what happened to children of divorce' and was worried that we'd get in legal troubles, start using drugs, having out-of-wedlock kids, et al.

Those things didn't happen but, they could have happened regardless of whether he stayed or not. I won't speculate on whether or not it was good for him to make himself suffer in an unhappy marriage because, I don't know what goes on in anyone else's marriage. It's not appropriate for me to criticize. However, I like to think that I learned from his mistakes. I won't be marrying a woman with a vastly different personality from mine. It just creates too many damned headaches.

B.) His current taste in women is not even close to being the same as mine.

I love Redheads. They make me salivate like a hungry dog eyeballin' a steak. My father apparently likes Asians since he's dating one right now. Considering this, I think it's best if I don't have him try to find me a wife. He'll invariably try to set me up with someone he likes instead of someone that excites me. That's what just about anyone would invariably do.

I've learned that from real life experience. Several old friends have tried to set me up with people in the past, only to get angry when I decline their offer of help. They'd get mad, accuse me of chasing after women that either don't exist or that I can't get because they're 'out of my league', et al. I just rolled my eyes at their arrogance and disassociated myself from them. Since it's clear they didn't think much of my ability to make my own life decisions, it's pretty clear that they weren't really much of a friend at all.

I don't care who you are or how seemingly noble you're intentions might seem to you. You have NO RIGHT to force other people to live how you want them to live. That is trying to make them your slave in an ideological sense. As we've already discussed several times with Exodus 21:16 and the First Commandment, SLAVERY IS WRONG.

7.) They seem to misinterpret the Seventh Commandment too...

Seriously, how did they mess this one up?

""Undue delay of marriage" is also called a sin of the Seventh Commandment in the Westminster Catechism."

Oh, I see... Westminster Catechism... They took something that was not even in the Bible to inform their interpretation of Scripture... Yeah, makes perfect sense if you're religious instead of an actual Follower of Christ. That is the key difference between Faith and Religion. Faith is about reading/learning from the Bible and trusting that God has good intentions for you. Religion adds things to the Bible and then creates Dogma and Traditions that contradict what the Bible actually says. The Catholics are infamous for this behavior, especially when it comes to sex.

Also, let's look at what the Bible has to say about the Seventh Commandment, shall we?

"You shall not commit adultery." Exodus 20:14

That's all it says. Nothing more, nothing less and, most importantly, NOTHING else. And 'Adultery' as defined by the Bible means cheating on a spouse. It has nothing to do with pre-marital sex, self-imposed celibacy, NOT self-imposed celibacy, masturbation or any kind of sexual thought or act involving unmarried people. That would usually be labeled as fornication or impure thoughts. Again, 'not committing Adultery' simply means that you can't screw around on your spouse or screw around with someone else's spouse. Nothing more, nothing less and, most importantly, NOTHING else.

That also takes us back to talking point #3, where I torpedoed the idea that courtship keeping people who 'weren't ready' for marriage from getting married was somehow wrong. Marriage is a good thing but, some people are not marriage material. It would be inhumane and morally wrong to force someone into a lifelong partnership that they can't handle or don't want. Life is often miserable enough. It does not need to be made worse by being in a loveless, unhappy marriage.

8.) They are pretty ignorant of the History of Marriage too...

"Do you know anyone who has successfully gone through this process? Everyone who is married has gone through at least some parts of 'this process'. Probably no one who was ever married, except perhaps Adam and Eve, went through it exactly perfectly.[1] But we do know several couples who have come close to following most of the principles we list on our site.

More importantly, we see the dozens of examples in Scripture where this is done, and for the greater portion of human history (since dating and courtship are modern inventions), this is how people got married (though, perhaps not always concerned with other aspects of the Bible's teachings). We hope to see many more young marriages that result from faithful application of the Scripture!

And most of those arranged marriages in the old days were very unhappy. They often exists solely for procreation to perpetuate a royal family line and create larger/stronger political unions. The men in these marriages (often Royalty or Nobles) would have mistresses and concubines on the side. Sometimes, those mistresses and concubines would even be friends with the wife! Louis XV of France had a wife and concubine that were very friendly with each other. Like so many Royals before him, he didn't really love his wife, just used her for children. He loved his mistress enough to give her a royal title: Madame de Pompadour.

Wouldn't it be better if a man and woman could marry each other for love instead of politics or pleasing their parents? Marrying someone you love will make you a MUCH happier person.

9.) They keep cherry-picking verses to suit their own agenda, even in very obvious ways like the oft-quoted advice about marriage from St. Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Did they not think that I would notice?

"Who should get married? Those of age finding themselves in need of marriage for the purposes thereof (companionship, help meet, children, the marriage bed, etc.) should clearly marry. Those struggling with fornication are commanded to marry (1 Corinthians 7:2). Anyone who is desirous of marriage for its privileges and responsibilities should also marry."

I really do hate when someone tries to cherry-pick a verse to suit their own purposes and ends up using it out of its proper context. That is so annoying...

1 Corinthians 7:2 was not a command to be married. It said that people should be married to only one person at a time. It continues a thought started with 1 Corinthian 7:1 where Paul tries to answer questions about marriage that the Church in Corinth had.

1 Corinthians 7:2 said that people should be married to only one person but, it didn't stop there. In verse 3-5 of that chapter, he also said that neither party had control of their own body when it came to sex. Instead, a man belonged exclusively to his wife and she belonged exclusively to her husband. Sounds like he was trying to encourage monogamy more than just marriage by itself. You can see why if you continue reading through verses 6-9. In those verses, he implicitly states that he would prefer that people be celibate like him but, realizes that's not possible. Therefore, it's better to get married than to fool around and 'burn with passion'. He was indeed trying to say that Men and Women should wait until marriage to have sex or, stay celibate if they never married. However, he also knew that wouldn't be possible for everyone.

10.) They get their recommended age ranges for marriage from sources other than Scripture. Why am I not surprised?

"How young should people get married? We think that if people are honest with themselves, they really already know the answer to this question. When do boys become men and girls become women? When are their bodies developed enough to have children? When do they begin to develop romantic interest in the opposite sex, and when does fornication begin to become an issue?

The Bible provides many reasons for marriage, and most if not all of them demonstrate that marriage typically ought to happen in the youth (as in, before the age of 20).

We also quote some old commentators (Calvin, Gill, Luther) who assign particular age ranges to clarify what we should already know to be “youth”. (Seriously, most churches today have “youth groups”, which are for their teenage population.) And we generally agree with these men. John Calvin defines the “flower of her age” (1 Corinthians 7:36) as “from twelve to twenty years of age”. Likewise, John Gill defines it as “one of twelve years and a half old”. And Martin Luther says, “A young man should marry at the age of twenty at the latest, a young woman at fifteen to eighteen…” We do not endorse marriage at ages as young as twelve. Our position is that, for a woman:

1) The ‘youth’ ready for marriage has breasts. A woman who is to be married is one who has breasts; breasts which signal her readiness for marriage, and breasts who promise enjoyment for her husband. (We believe that ‘breasts’ here stand as a symbol for all forms of full secondary sexual characteristics.)

2) The ‘youth’ ready for marriage is ready to bear children. Unlike modern society Scripture sees the woman as a bearer, nurser, and raiser of children. The ‘young woman’ is the woman whose body is physically ready for these things, physically mature enough to handle them without damage.

3) The 'youth' ready for marriage is one who is ready for sexual intercourse sexually and emotionally. Her desire is for her husband, and she is ready to rejoice in him physically.

All three of the above points represent, not a certain exact age, but a level of physical and sexual maturity. Not ‘maturity’ as in ‘been there, done that’, nor even a ‘maturity’ as in ‘have been at this level for a long time’, but a point of arrival. But we are certainly in agreement with the commentators that marriage (in order to be timely and to accomplish its purposes) ought to happen before the age of twenty for almost everyone."

Oh, I am going to have soooooo much fun tearing this one apart...

A.) Calvin, Gill and Luther were not Biblical authors. They are not God. They are not the Son of Man. I doubt they were inspired by God, either. In fact, Calvinism was so nuts that Methodism was created as a rejection of that philosophy.

B.) Just because someone is physically capable of bearing children doesn't mean they should. There are a lot of considerations that must be taken into account besides maturity level of the parents. Can they financially support the child? That is pretty important. The last thing we need as a society is more people on the public dole...

C.) How exactly would you determine if a young girl is sexually and emotionally ready for intimacy? That varies from person to person and doesn't simply happen with age.

D.) 20 is the oldest that someone can procreate? Seriously? I guess I shouldn't be surprised since these people are likely religious fanatics and, like most religious fanatics, VERY anti-science. Since you probably skipped Sex Ed in High School, allow me to give you a little additional information. Men can continue to procreate as long as they can still ejaculate (Hey, another dirty rhyme!) and women generally don't lose the ability to conceive until about age 40. There's no reason why two people who still are children should be coerced into having children of their own.

11.) They deny endorsing child marriage or pedophilia, which is actually true. However, even in this, they show a considerable lack of knowledge in Human biological development.

"Are you endorsing child marriage or paedophilia? God forbid. We decry the way our society has sexualized children and do not endorse this whatsoever. We believe and teach that our sons and daughters should not be married until their secondary sexual development is complete. We find this principle clearly (if implied) in the Song of Solomon, Proverbs 5, Ezekiel 16, et al. Also, given the Biblical command to be fruitful and multiply (see Genesis 1:28) as well as Psalm 127 and 128, they should not be married until their bodies have developed so as to be mature enough to bear children. These ages are roughly the same and support one other."

Believe it or not, Sex is just as mental as it is physical. The most successful parents are the ones who have children after they have fully grown in EVERY way, not just their physical bodies. That means their minds must also be mature. This involves the one piece of the brain that is not already fully formed by the beginning of puberty (the frontal lobe) finally forming and signifying that Nature now considers that person to be a fully grown adult. It varies from person to person but, it usually happens around age 23 for girls and 25 for boys. And since Humans are the top of the food chain, I don't believe we have to be in a rush to replenish our numbers.

12.) They reference 'Scientific studies' but, do not provide the evidence for their assertions. Okay, now I'm getting a bit miffed...

"Why is it necessary to marry young to produce children? Can’t God give a couple many children even if they marry at 30? God certainly *can* give people children if they marry at 30 or later (and He has). God can also cause a virgin to conceive or rocks to produce offspring for Abraham. But, these facts do not mean that we should be expecting God to routinely be doing these things. God who has ordained the end has also ordained the means to those ends. God is certainly capable of converting the hearts of all unregenerate men with the snap of a finger, but He has commanded His followers to go and evangelize the world and to make disciples.

God has commanded most men and most women to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), and He has commanded certain men and women without the rare gift of celibacy to marry (1 Corinthians 7:2). God has shown in His Word that this means that men and women should marry in their “youth” when it is relevant, not 10-20 years after the fact. And anyone with an elementary understanding of math can figure out that someone who marries before the age of 20 (all other things being equal) will be in a better position to have many children than a person marrying at 35 or 40. The Bible also talks about the blessing of seeing our "children's children" (Psalm 128:6), which means, given the current life expectancy of people, that...the younger the better.

Furthermore, we know from scientific studies (as well as first-hand knowledge, in many cases) that the fertility of women (and even men, to some extent) goes down steadily after the age of 20, and dips even more sharply after 30 and 40. This is even more the case if a woman has reached such an age without having had any children yet. So, by reason of these facts, it is clear that it is best to marry much earlier than 30 to better fulfill the command to be “fruitful and multiply”.

Present the evidence that verifies your claim. Otherwise, you're talking shit.

It's a well-known fact that women have more trouble conceiving after 30 but, it's not as difficult as you think. Also, medical science has created some VERY successful fertility treatments. So, having children later in life is not all that bad. The only concern I have is if the first child a woman has is born after she turns 30. That can increase the risk of Classical Autism.

Also, the remarks about 'the current life expectancy of people' and how God would want us to live long enough to see our Grandkids... You do realize that average life expectancy is 72 for an American Male and 74 for American Females, right? If that isn't long enough to see your grand kids, then, you're just not going to see them.

13.) Their responses to questions about determining readiness are laughable... And dangerously harmful if implemented...

"What if my children aren't ready? If they are of age and you are confident that they do not fall into one of the three Biblical categories of "eunuch", then they need to be ready for marriage. Re-examine your idea of readiness. Get them ready.

How can I tell if they are ready? Their age and physical development should give you a clue. If you find them “noticing” the opposite sex more, that should give another clue…at least it should prompt you to discuss it with them. And really, these kinds of conversations should already be happening well before the time when they are “ready” for marriage.

Also, it never hurts to ask them. :)

How exactly am I going to 'get them ready?' Do you think I have the magical ability to speed up their maturation process? If I engaged in that kind of Mad Science, you'd call me a sinner for 'daring to play God.' Also, noticing the opposite sex doesn't mean you're ready for marriage. That's the start of the process, not the end. I 'noticed' the opposite sex and wondered what kissing was like when I was still in Kindergarten. Should I have gotten married when I was 4 and 5 years old?

14.) They are suffering from cognitive dissonance...

"What about "leave and cleave"? As with everything, we must continually bear in mind “the analogy of faith”—that is, that Scripture interprets Scripture, and that clear passages help interpret unclear passages. So, when we find an idea, a doctrine that is only stated in a single verse in Scripture (especially if it is not in unequivocal terms), we should look to the surrounding context (i.e., the entire of Scripture) to help clarify what is being said in that one verse. It is generally unwise to create doctrines that are isolated to single verses and have no other support in the remaining canon of Scripture."

Oh, so you're not supposed to cherry-pick verses to support your ideas but should read the surrounding verses to ensure that you understand the proper context? No!!! You don't say?! [/sarcasm]

"How does it work to be married and still under your father's jurisdiction? Well, this has “worked” for millions of people for thousands of years throughout various countries and societies. The only reason we are at odds with this idea and find it so foreign to us today is that we are in a culture at a period of history following several decades, even centuries (though accelerated in recent decades) of encouraged disobedience and disrespect of parents and really shirking all outside authority over us. This is even considered somewhat of a virtue in American culture. This value was then enjoined by evangelicals with a single verse in Scripture stripped of its proper meaning and context, and then the trap was set. The truth is that the Church has always taught that honor, respect, and obedience are owed to parents irrespective of one’s age or condition. Disobedience to parents is even considered one of the grievous sins that result from rejecting God and deserve the wrath and judgment of God (Romans 1:28-32)."

Again with criticizing American culture... Are you sure that you're not just criticizing those elements of our society that don't value the family unit? I can see what you're saying here applying to some Democrats and narcissistic California people but, not Americans in general.

Also, the 'virtue' you're referring to here is not disrespect for one's parents. It's the time when children grow up, move out and become self-reliant. That is not a bad thing, nor does it mean that the child can't still help/pool his resources with his parents for their mutual benefit.

15.) Their advice about finding women is just as terrible as everyone else...

"If you don't believe in dating and courtship, how would people meet and get together? Any number of ways, really. But, it is the fathers or their representatives who are to be doing the looking. We believe if we are faithful in our responsibilities that God will provide a spouse one way or another.

Ideally, spouses would be available in their own congregations. But really, even beyond this, if we will open our minds a bit and release many of our preconceived ideas and inhibitions, spouses could be found by networking. And the advantage of this approach is that the prospects come with some degree of approval or trustworthiness. For every unmarried man seeking a wife, there is roughly the same number of women in the same position seeking husbands. And vice versa.

I've been looking for a wife since 2008. I'm no closer to finding one now then I was at that point. Also, didn't I already explain why I don't want my father to be involved in the process? At the ripe old age of 34, I think I am more than capable of making my own good decisions. I make them everyday. I don't need my father to hold my hand with everything anymore.

16.) They reject the notion of a soul mate but, also the notion of Free Will being involved.

"Do you believe in “soul mates” or finding "the one"? Does God have that one special person just for me? This belief really is at the heart of many of the “bad marriage” or “bad match” or “finding Mr. Right” mentalities that results in rejecting so many men and women as prospective spouses. By the way, not that we are accusing anyone of this and most would probably deny the connection, but this is the same mentality that leads some people to abandon their spouses and marriages because they have “fallen out of love” or because they have realized that they married the “wrong person”. What we can say for sure, though, is this idea encourages the wrong kind of thinking. Unmarried people get hung up on whimsical fantasies rather the hard work and commitment that a marriage requires."

This part actually makes sense. There is no one perfect person for you because there are no perfect people. It's more logical to go after a certain type of person. However, even that may not net you much success in your pursuit of marital bliss.

"Don’t they need to choose for themselves? Scripturally-speaking there is no Biblical injunction that the young man or woman choose themselves a spouse. In fact, quite the opposite: “He who findeth a wife…”

And really, “choice” is a bit misleading. It is not as though all of the women or all of the men in the whole world are lined up for our son or daughter to choose from. More than that, even if such a selection were possible, we would only be selecting from those men and women whom God had created. So, really, it is only those whom God puts in our path anyway.

Besides, are there really a hundred women lining up to marry your son or a hundred men lining up to marry your daughter, all of whom would immediately agree to marry them? Would there even be five? Sorry to burst your bubble, but even if your son/daughter found the most perfect woman/man in the country, one who met all of their list of requirements and qualifications, she/he still might not want to marry him/her. And it would be prideful to think otherwise. In this way, lists and seemingly endless qualifications end up being a roadblock to marriage. Plus, they are without Scriptural precedent.

That's why I came up with a list of things I did NOT want in a spouse instead. Also, there are people in this world who could easily get a hundred perspective spouses to line up for the chance to marry them. They are called models, actresses, Rock Stars and celebrities. However, that's more of an attraction than genuine love. Lots of Eros but, no Philos or Agape. Those marriages probably wouldn't work and probably explain why models, actresses, Rock Stars and celebrities go through so many divorces.

Also, how do you know that God won't put several good marriageable women in my path during my life? Are you trying to convince me that a finite creature like you truly understands the infinite? Such stunning arrogance!

17.) They don't believe bad choices are possible...

"What if you make a bad choice? What if you do? What if they do?

There are obviously two issues here: One is the value of marriage in itself, a value that must be weighed against the possible problems in marriage. Does someone who finds a wife find a good thing? Or is it only someone who finds a good wife? Or somewhere in between?

The second question, which probably is the one that drives the ‘father making a bad choice’ question most of the time when we are asked, is really ‘but won’t my kids be mad at me, the father, if I pick someone they end up not liking, or divorcing, etc.?’.

The answer to that is obvious: yes, they probably will. Whereas if they pick them themselves, they probably won’t figure out that your lack of involvement in the process might actually be part of the problem.

But in the end (or better, in the beginning), we need to actually look to Scripture to see what God’s will is. Since God has placed the onus on the father to provide a spouse for his virgin child, that is what the obedient father needs to do, even if it exposes him to possible dissatisfaction or rebuke from his child.

If one wishes to get into a more worldly wisdom discussion of the issue, then other factors come to mind:

It is almost a cliché that a young man or woman, who have ‘fallen in love’, find themselves incapable of rational thought where their beloved is concerned. The ‘step-mother’ of fair tale legend shows an ordinarily loving father who is blinded to the faults of his new wife. Myriad romantic comedies show a young man or woman who has fallen for an obviously impossible match and is blind and deaf to any correction by friends and family.

And logic would have it so. The sexual hormones are among the most powerful drivers of human behavior. The desire for sex and companionship is huge. The mere possibility that a young woman or man will end up our sexual partner can drive all reason from our brains.

While the father may well have a strong desire to see their child married, they are not hormone-driven in the process. If we were truly picking spouses in a rational way, relying on merely our own human logic, then we would easily decide that the father was the one who should pick, not the son or daughter. Unless, that is, we believe in the Disney magic of ‘the one' and believe that it is only the person involved who can find this person.

I've already explained why I am not letting my father pick my future bride. I won't totally ignore his input and concerns but, I must also take his own romantic failures into account when making MY decision. Also, even at the most immature point in my adolescence, I still knew better than to rush into a marriage. Hormones can make me do crazy things but, never to the same extent as you NT's. Give me and my capacity for self control some credit, guy!

18.) They are calling me a sinner just for being single. Judgmental assholes... You think I wanted it to be this way?!

"Are you teaching that being “single” is living in a sin? It is usually unwise to make absolute, universal statements, but we may speak generally. Given the rarity of the special gift and the command to be fruitful and multiply, most should marry. And those battling fornication are commanded to marry, as the Biblical alternative as part of their repentance.

Many of the old commentators like Calvin and Luther say it is impossible for those without this gift to live righteously and that those who resist God’s remedy against uncleanness war with God. So, it is very likely that many of those who are of age and not married are living in sin. But, they are also likely not the only ones deserving of blame. Those forbidding marriage by teaching false doctrines and un-Biblical alternatives are also guilty. Perhaps more so.

I'm not given to fornication nor one with the 'special gift' for celibacy. Even if I wanted my father involved in the process, it's doubtful that he would be able to find me a wife. He's not a Christian anymore. He converted to Buddhism for some reason (I never asked why he did this) and his girlfriend is some kind of clergy member in their temple. I don't know the exact title. Strangely enough, she does seem concerned with my being perpetually single and has asked me what kind of girls I like. I simply responded by saying 'Redheads'. The discussion did not go much further than that...

Also, I may be physically and psychologically ready for marriage but, my bank account is not. It makes no sense to get married when you know that you can't support a family and that your family can't financially support you and a perspective spouse. I resent that you would think me a sinner just because my life's circumstances have been so very tough since I opened my heart to marriage. Who do you think you are to be so judgmental and wag the finger at me? Schmuck. Do I really need to remind you about Matthew 7:1? Do you think it's been easy for me to be so lonely all this time?

19.) Again, I am NO ONE's Slave. God hates that shit!

"What about Christian liberty? Tragically, many professing Christians profess to believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, yet when they come to issues that the Bible does not address “expressly,” they act as though God has left them to their own imagination—often dubiously renamed “being led by the Spirit”—and to their own devices. In reality, this makes them the final arbiters of what they do. This man-centered practice—often dubiously renamed “Christian liberty”—produces fleshly living at best and tragedy at worst. Whenever we step outside our Father’s Word, we must ultimately end up outside our Father’s will.

The “liberty” of the believer does not mean, in this case or in any case, that we are at liberty to choose right actions or wrong actions or that God simply “doesn’t care” what we do. A careful examination of the use of the term and concept of “liberty” in Scripture will show clearly that we are set free from our slavery to sin, only to be enslaved to righteousness. That we are loosed from our service to Satan only to serve as a bond-slave of Christ, not set free to follow our own desires or to imagine and follow our own standards of righteousness.

You must be using a version of the Bible written with bad translations or an old-fashioned approach to English. As I have repeatedly demonstrated throughout this retort, God does NOT approve of Slavery. We are supposed to be His servants, not his cotton-pickin' slaves!

I'm glad that I'm finally done reading through all this shit. It was starting to get aggravating with its contradictions, narrow view of the world and STUNNING ignorance of Human Psychology, Biology, Sociology and many other Scientific disciplines. These people have driven many away from Faith and created many more Agnostics and Atheists. I feel confident in guaranteeing that assertion.

- Lord Publius

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

So Trump is likely to be the GOP's candidate, heh?

I know a lot of people are pretty disappointed with the news that Trump has all but secured his nomination s the GOP candidate in this year's Presidential election. Some are also concerned that he might turn out to be a disaster. I share that concern because it's plainly obvious that Mr. Trump has ZERO humility in public. I doubt he has much in private, either.

His getting nominated however, does not surprise me at all. Want to know how Trump became the GOP nominee and will (probably) become POTUS? Well, it's because the establishments of both parties have failed us and Voters wanted some payback. This quote of a stranger that I just saw on Facebook says it all...

"I think that this election cycle is just an abberation. I do not believe that social issues are dead at all. I think that the electorate was simply infuriated about the broken promises of the establishment wings of both parties. I think that people just wanted to throw a hand grenade into the process to blow the whole system up and Trump was the only one who appeared to be such a grenade. Even though people, including myself, do not agree with everything he says, there is not doubt that he will not simply be a puppet of the establishment. He has a genuine love for America and the reason he has done so well because like Reagan, he is the only candidate who seems like he will put America FIRST. Even Cruz, on issues like trade, does not show the same vigorous dedication to our national interests."

I added emphasis to part of that quote for a good reason. This election is no longer about issues. It's about the American people being very pissed off. They were looking for a way to punish the government for its many misdeeds in recent years. What better way to say 'Fuck YOU!!!' to the system than to pick a total outsider whose too rich to be bought and seems to want to put American interests above all others? People are doing what they always do: thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. Anger is driving this election, not the actual issues. That usually doesn't end well.

Personally, I don't believe what Trump says. Like any Politician worth their salt, he's smart enough to tell people what they want to hear rather than the truth. I'm certain that's what he's done. However, we can do (and have done) a lot worse than him for a POTUS. After all, we did elect that Socialist Shitbag Barack Obama and my grandparent's generation elected that other Socialist Shitbag Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (That ought to rustle a lot of Democrat feathers.)

I, however, have had enough of this bullshit with the Clowns on the Left and Jokers on the Right. I'm going Libertarian all the way now. The GOP has failed me too many times and I know way too much about history to get suckered into voting for Democrats. Like Ronald Reagan once said of the Democrats, 'I didn't leave the party. The party left me.'

If you want someone who will actually *reduce* the size of the Federal government like I do, neither the Dems or GOP will work for you. However, the Libertarian Party will. That's why their party exists.

If you're not sure who you really side with, you can find out with this handy little online quiz here: http://www.isidewith.com/. I took that quiz and found that my views coincide with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson 88% of the time. Can't say that I was surprised by that result. I was surprised that there was ANY issue where Hilary Clinton and I supposedly agree. I say 'supposedly' because that broad is nothing but a liar, cheat and career criminal. She'll say or do anything to acquire more money and power. I swear to you, if she isn't the Anti-Christ or the Devil herself, she is at least very enthusiastically doing their work.

That's all I have to say about this issue for now. I don't know what's going to happen in the future but, I suspect it will be at least 4 more years of misadventure and bullshit. May God save the Republic from its own foolishness.

- Lord Publius